City of Hudson's weighed voting system under scrutiny

[jimrtex]

You should read this opinion - lots of interesting thoughts about electoral and representation equality.

Calvin v Jefferson County (PDF)

Ignore that the decision is about prisons, and that Hudson has a prison - but focus on the underlying principles.

Interesting reading. Mirror, mirror on the wall, is the 5th ward screwed after all (more folks per alderperson, thus less "access," or "unfairly" benefitted (because it has more critical votes than it should assuming its two alderpersons do not vote randomly vis a vis each other)?

It is certainly a bold district judge who would issue a ruling which might conflict with a pending SCOTUS decision. Does the SCOTUS like to be informed about cases that were decided after they had heard oral arguments. You might recall that some of the commentary was that the SCOTUS would come down in favor of representational equality based on population. The Democratic  justices will probably vote that way. In this case, the judge is arguing for representational equality, but on the basis that the prisoners do not have a right to representation in the county where they are housed.

He also suggests that jurisdictions could choose between electoral equality and representational equality, but that the choice could not be arbitrary. Texas in defending against 'Evenwel' argued that the choice was discretionary. But how do you decide if the choice is arbitrary? Incidentally, based on VAP, there is about a 25% deviation between the 1st and 2nd wards of our proposed maps.

The problem is that after Reynolds v Sims, the SCOTUS was careless in expressing what the population base was, and since they typically used census population, some now argue that they were elucidating some grand principle. Instead they were reacting on an ad hoc basis as they tried to find there way out of the mathematical quagmire.

There have been legal challenges to weighted voting based on committee representation. If Hudson were sued, the city could argue that the committees are just study groups. They don't actually vote on any legislation. After Roxbury Taxpayers v Delaware County, there was a similar lawsuit in another county. To avoid making the identical complaint of the other case, they added a complaint about  committees, which failed to persuade the court.

The SCOTUS has in two cases rejected the use of Banzhaf Power Index to measure electoral equality. The electorate of Ward 5 is denied equal protection because of its use. While Hudson and Columbia County might argue for some rational purpose of using the BPI - they will lose because use of BPI results in converting majority electorates into minority representation - and this is such a necessary consequence of the calculation of the BPI, that it can be considered deliberate discrimination.

I wonder if his fictional Marshall County is named after John or Thurgood. There may be a racial aspect to the case. One of the plaintiffs is a former county commissioner, and the current commissioner for his district is black. Perhaps another district could be flipped based on changing boundaries.

In Houston, "JCI' stands for James Coney Island a really long time cultural institution.

[jimrtex]

I told the City clerk to ask for split census block totals from the census bureau in 2019, so Hudson will not need to do estimates in the future. The split blocks reflect the status quo, and I don't want the small wards to do anything but expand out, as part of a least change regime, and I don't want to cross Warren Street.

The Census Bureau only releases block data following the census. They only use visible feature, and political boundaries for defining census block boundaries. Before the 2010 census they did permit states to propose use of artificial boundaries for VTDs, which would in turn cause creation of a new census blocks, but explained that state law might not permit that. In New York, VTDs correspond to election districts, and state law strongly is opposed to election districts that an ordinary decent citizen can determine without special equipment.

Following the 2020 census you will likely have to come across Warren to maintain equal population wards.

Ah, whether the ward lines can be changed after the 2020 census is itself an interesting issue that I needed to fitness. Wheels, within wheels, within wheels.

And nobody knows how to frame the petition. The law is that much of a mess. So to be cautious, it will be full dress, as if a constitutional amendment to the state constitution. At least the AG's office reassured me, that the abstract will not be subject to their vetting (the actual law in unclear).
[/quote]
State law requires that representational areas be based on a rational set of population. You will lose if someone argues to continue to use 2010 census figures, and if the 2020 numbers produce wards that are out of range.

Based on your proposed districts, the 2000 populations were (see the map for the 2003 referendum - and deduct the 618 HCI population)

Ward 1: 1797 +30.1% (above ideal)
Ward 2: 1280 -7.3%
Ward 3: 1354 -1.9%
Ward 4: 1344 -2.7%
Ward 5: 1132 -18.0%

Your proposed Ward 1 lost 28.8% of its population between 2000 and 2010.

[muon2]

The text of the proposed law is now all done. Once we resolve what has to be on the petition itself, and some alpha counsel who is an expert on these matters vets the text and tosses some holy water on it, we will be ready for our May 1 launch.

What is the constitutional or statutory basis for local initiative?

I came across some proposed constitutional amendments that would provide for both statewide and local initiatives, but none appear to have made it out of the legislature.
The estimates of the split block are estimates. Your actual deviation is probably greater. Did the city clerk provide error estimates? In the past, Hudson was stuck making estimates, but is it rational city policy to split blocks deliberately going forward?

I told the City clerk to ask for split census block totals from the census bureau in 2019, so Hudson will not need to do estimates in the future. The split blocks reflect the status quo, and I don't want the small wards to do anything but expand out, as part of a least change regime, and I don't want to cross Warren Street.

The Census Bureau only releases block data following the census. They only use visible feature, and political boundaries for defining census block boundaries. Before the 2010 census they did permit states to propose use of artificial boundaries for VTDs, which would in turn cause creation of a new census blocks, but explained that state law might not permit that. In New York, VTDs correspond to election districts, and state law strongly is opposed to election districts that an ordinary decent citizen can determine without special equipment.

Following the 2020 census you will likely have to come across Warren to maintain equal population wards.

Not necessarily. Now that the prison population is dealt with by exclusion from the city, it's not clear how much population shifting will happen this decade. Given the low variance in Torie's plan, it may be that no changes are needed to stay within a 10% range after 2020. I've seen that happen in a few suburbs around here where there was only spotty new construction so the inequality was low enough to go for a second decade.

[jimrtex]

The Census Bureau only releases block data following the census. They only use visible feature, and political boundaries for defining census block boundaries. Before the 2010 census they did permit states to propose use of artificial boundaries for VTDs, which would in turn cause creation of a new census blocks, but explained that state law might not permit that. In New York, VTDs correspond to election districts, and state law strongly is opposed to election districts that an ordinary decent citizen can determine without special equipment.

Following the 2020 census you will likely have to come across Warren to maintain equal population wards.

Not necessarily. Now that the prison population is dealt with by exclusion from the city, it's not clear how much population shifting will happen this decade. Given the low variance in Torie's plan, it may be that no changes are needed to stay within a 10% range after 2020. I've seen that happen in a few suburbs around here where there was only spotty new construction so the inequality was low enough to go for a second decade.

The 28.8% decline for Ward 1 for Torie's proposed plan excludes the 2000 prison population.

The map for the 2003 referendum - see above just before Torie's proposed - map has the 2000 block populations. The prison is in the block with 694 persons. I excluded the prison population of 618.

Population south of Warren St (extended) and west of Worth Ave:

2000 Census: 2415
2000 Prison: 618
2000 Non-Prison: 1797
2010 LATFOR: 1279

It is the 1797 to 1279 decline that is 28.8%. There has been a lot of absentee owners buying up property in the 1st ward for use as 2nd homes. The reason that they butchered the division of the Front Street block may because they couldn't believe that there had been such a massive decline.

Overall, there was a 6.1% decline in the city population. A ward that had no change in population would have a 6.1% increase relative to the quota.

1% of the quota is 12.8.  Torie was fretting because my districts were 30 above or below the ideal.

Looking at the 2014 ACS*, it appears that there has been around a 30% drop in Torie's Ward 3, but a recovery in the old Ward 1, so it might be possible to keep Ward 1 south of Warren.

Torie already shifted Ward 3 to include areas north of Warren.

*Caveat - block group estimates have huge MOE (20-25%) and the BG only roughly correspond to ward boundaries. The ACS is year round. There might be an increase in the seasonal population during the summer.

With such a small population, a rather small apartment complex (30 or so units) is enough to kick a ward outside 5% limits.

[Torie]

I am pretty confident that the 10% benchmark will not be exceeded with the 2020 census. There is no land left on which much can be built. A few units go up, and some units are lost (for example, a gay man (gays are one of the main culprits of gentrification) bought a 5 plex on State St near 5th and is converting it into a single family home. And given that in NY, redistricting can occur but once a decade, absent the exceeding of the 10% benchmark, it may be illegal under state law to change the lines after the 2020 census given a change in 2017 (unless federal law requires it because there is no reasonable justification for the population variances, and that is unlikely to occur, where the lines are not changed at all - stability is a reasonable reason not to reduce population variances I strongly suspect). So odds are that if this map passes, it will hold until the 2033 election, when I shall be 82 years old.

The 10% benchmark under the weighted voting regime was not exceeded in 2003, btw, and thus there was no change in the weighed vote at that time. The building of Crosswinds, the change in the way prisoners were counted, and a housing development at the top of the hill at the end of Rossman, did upset the apple cart after the 2010 census, giving the 5th ward a larger share of the pie, and increasing the resentment in some quarters of the weighted voting system. And then I arrived! And Jimrtex got interested, and the rest is history in the making.

[jimrtex]

I am pretty confident that the 10% benchmark will not be exceeded with the 2020 census. There is no land left on which much can be built. A few units go up, and some units are lost (for example, a gay man (gays are one of the main culprits of gentrification) bought a 5 plex on State St near 5th and is converting it into a single family home. And given that in NY, redistricting can occur but once a decade, absent the exceeding of the 10% benchmark, it may be illegal under state law to change the lines after the 2020 census given a change in 2017 (unless federal law requires it because there is no reasonable justification for the population variances, and that is unlikely to occur, where the lines are not changed at all - stability is a reasonable reason not to reduce population variances I strongly suspect). So odds are that if this map passes, it will hold until the 2033 election, when I shall be 82 years old.

The 10% benchmark under the weighted voting regime was not exceeded in 2003, btw, and thus there was no change in the weighed vote at that time. The building of Crosswinds, the change in the way prisoners were counted, and a housing development at the top of the hill at the end of Rossman, did upset the apple cart after the 2010 census, giving the 5th ward a larger share of the pie, and increasing the resentment in some quarters of the weighted voting system. And then I arrived! And Jimrtex got interested, and the rest is history in the making.

The MHR limits redistricting to once per decade beginning with 1970. That is, once per census decade - not 10 years from the previous change.

Because of the split block estimates, you can't be totally confident that you are within 10% limits now.

Sleepy Hudson had not changed its voting weights from the 1970s (it took them a long time after the OMOV decisions to address the issue). BTW, one of Rick Scalera's first votes was to implement weighted voting.

While Columbia County adjusted its weights every decade, Hudson did not bother. In 2002, the Common Council passed a resolution specifying the ward populations - they did the allocation right, and followed the ward boundaries in the charter (that is how I discovered 2010 was messed up).

After they determined the ward populations, they shipped it off to Dr.Papayanopoulos who proposed new voting weights. But  then in late 2002 and early 2003, the Common Council decided to propose equal population wards, the resolution passed in spring of 2003, and was defeated in November 2003. After it was defeated, they decided to use the weights that had been calculated in 2002.

From 2000 to 2010, your new Ward 1 lost 29% of its population. This has nothing to do with the prison adjustment. This significant drop may have contributed to the butchering of the Front Street block. They wouldn't believe that the 1st Ward had fewer than 500 people.

[Torie]

Where is the once per decade language that makes it clear, that it is not a 10 year time frame? I live in Hudson. I am pretty confident about the relative population stability in each ward at present. The census block split estimates, will only have minor errors if split for the next census which I am urging the City Clerk to do. 

[jimrtex]

Where is the once per decade language that makes it clear, that it is not a 10 year time frame? I live in Hudson. I am pretty confident about the relative population stability in each ward at present. The census block split estimates, will only have minor errors if split for the next census which I am urging the City Clerk to do. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't see where there is an initiative power for state constitutional amendments, which would be analogous to an initiative power for city charters.

How do you know how much error there is with the current split estimates?

While there may be general stability such that the overall configuration need not change, it is a certainty that individual boundaries will need adjustment.

You would be better off getting the census bureau to split some blocks divided by visible features.

[jimrtex]

Here is a better map of my revised version:



It leaves all current incumbents in the same wards as Torie's proposal.

(1) Henry A. Haddad, J. Michael O'Hara, Rick Rector
(2) Tiffany Garriga, Abdus S. Miah
(3) John K. Friedman, Priscilla Moore
(4) Alexis Keith, Lauren Scalera
(5) Robert J. Donahue Sr.

(1) It eliminates split blocks, with the exception of unpopulated blocks in the Hudson River.
(2) It eliminates division of Hudson Terrace Apartments
(3) It avoids use of Alleys, other than Strawberry Alley.
(4) It crosses Warren in two places. Torie already crossed Warren east of 5th St (358 persons). I added one block between 1st, 2nd, and Columbia (137 persons).

[jimrtex]

Nobody has said whether they can see this.

Can You See This?

I'd be interested in what they see.

[Torie]

Nobody has said whether they can see this.

Can You See This?

I'd be interested in what they see.

Oh, that is very nice!  If you can find a nice street map (with the street and alley names) of Hudson showing its boundaries without aerials, that would be grand. That is the map format that I want to use. I appreciate all your hard work Jimrtex, but my map is not changing.

[jimrtex]

Nobody has said whether they can see this.

Can You See This?

I'd be interested in what they see.

Oh, that is very nice!  If you can find a nice street map (with the street and alley names) of Hudson showing its boundaries without aerials, that would be grand. That is the map format that I want to use. I appreciate all your hard work Jimrtex, but my map is not changing.

Try this version

Where does the map show up when you click on the link. I moved it, but you should be able to find your way home. Could you take a screen shot to show what you see.

There is also a background that shows shaded terrain, but it doesn't really add that much, unless you want to see the ravines behind Firemen's Home.

I assume you can search for street addresses?

I just sent you a KML file to the gmail address you were using in October 2014. You should be able to play around with Google My Maps, to change the ward boundaries and alter the presentation.

[Torie]

Here you go. On google earth, do I just delete temporary places, and then start drawing again, using the ruler? How do you change the color of the lines?  I would prefer a map that did not have an aerial, but rather was just a street map. Thanks.

[jimrtex]

Here you go. On google earth, do I just delete temporary places, and then start drawing again, using the ruler? How do you change the color of the lines?  I would prefer a map that did not have an aerial, but rather was just a street map. Thanks.

OK, so it recenters the map. I had left it centered on the town of Catskill.

While Google Earth understands KML files, I don't know whether you can edit them.

I created the map here:

Google MyMaps

Click on Create a Map.
Click on Import.
You will get a big box. Drag the KML file.
The map will pan to Hudson and show the outline of the wards.

The legend on the left will have a marker for each ward (they are not in numeric order, but you can drag them into order.

You can select a base map at the bottom.

I would color the wards first. You will want to move the transparency slider to left some, and probably thicken the boundaries, at least while editing.

When you select editing, circles will show up for each point in the boundary. You can drag them, or delete them. The boundaries for the wards are coincident - you will have to edit them separately.

[jimrtex]

The KML file is a text file, so you could edit it, but it might be hard to do that way (open the KML file in Wordpad and you will see why).

You can also enter addresses using a variety of files, including XLSX.

Open an XLSX file, and put column headings in Row 1.

For example, you might have columns headed:

NAME and ADDRESS, plus other columns with various attributes.

In the address column be sure to include the city and state. You can use the attributes to style the markers. I loaded the Hudson voter roll, and was able to control the marker display by party affiliation.

If you will pick a polling place for each ward, I'll show you an example.

[Torie]

The KML file is a text file, so you could edit it, but it might be hard to do that way (open the KML file in Wordpad and you will see why).

You can also enter addresses using a variety of files, including XLSX.

Open an XLSX file, and put column headings in Row 1.

For example, you might have columns headed:

NAME and ADDRESS, plus other columns with various attributes.

In the address column be sure to include the city and state. You can use the attributes to style the markers. I loaded the Hudson voter roll, and was able to control the marker display by party affiliation.

If you will pick a polling place for each ward, I'll show you an example.

You are way beyond my pay grade here. What is an XLSX file? Is that what you sent me?

The polling place for Wards 1-3 is 301 Allen St, Hudson, NY 12534 (St. Mary's Academy).

[jimrtex]

The KML file is a text file, so you could edit it, but it might be hard to do that way (open the KML file in Wordpad and you will see why).

You can also enter addresses using a variety of files, including XLSX.

Open an XLSX file, and put column headings in Row 1.

For example, you might have columns headed:

NAME and ADDRESS, plus other columns with various attributes.

In the address column be sure to include the city and state. You can use the attributes to style the markers. I loaded the Hudson voter roll, and was able to control the marker display by party affiliation.

If you will pick a polling place for each ward, I'll show you an example.

You are way beyond my pay grade here. What is an XLSX file? Is that what you sent me?

The polling place for Wards 1-3 is 301 Allen St, Hudson, NY 12534 (St. Mary's Academy).

I sent you a KML (Keyhold Markup Language). Google Earth was originally called Keyhole Earth Viewer, which was developed by Keyhole, Inc., a company that was acquired by Google.

XLSX is an Excel workbook file.

This is the file I created:

Ward      Address   Location
1   301 Allen St, Hudson, NY 12534   St.Mary's Academy
2   41 N 2nd St, Hudson, NY 12534   Hudson Housing Authority
3   520 Warren St, Hudson, NY 12534   Hudson City Hall
4   51 N 5th St, Hudson, NY 12534      Hudson Armory
5   102 Harry Howard Ave, Hudson NY 12534      Montgomery C Smith Intermediate School

It is for illustrative purposes only, so I picked a building in each ward. I don't know that they are suitable for polling locations. Google doesn't always do a super job of locating address, so I had to drag the markers.

[Simfan34]

Torie, I don't want to sound stupid, but what are chops and erosity?

[muon2]

Torie, I don't want to sound stupid, but what are chops and erosity?

I'll answer. Chops refer to the number of times that political units are divided between districts. If a political unit, for instance a county, is split between two districts then it has one chop. If it's divided between three districts then it has two chops.

Erosity is a measure of how irregularly shaped a district is. It comes from the word erose: having the margin irregularly notched <an erose leaf> (merriam-webster.com). Rather than just measure the perimeter of a district, erosity recognizes that small irregularities in an urban area are just as important as large irregularities in rural areas. Following a recognized political border that is itself irregular doesn't count towards erosity any more than if the border were a straight line.

A good neutral redistricting plan generally reduces the number of chops and reduces erosity, though at some point has to make a trade off between the two. The measures have been developed for our redistricting discussions on this board over the last 3-4 years.

[Torie]

The KML file is a text file, so you could edit it, but it might be hard to do that way (open the KML file in Wordpad and you will see why).

You can also enter addresses using a variety of files, including XLSX.

Open an XLSX file, and put column headings in Row 1.

For example, you might have columns headed:

NAME and ADDRESS, plus other columns with various attributes.

In the address column be sure to include the city and state. You can use the attributes to style the markers. I loaded the Hudson voter roll, and was able to control the marker display by party affiliation.

If you will pick a polling place for each ward, I'll show you an example.

You are way beyond my pay grade here. What is an XLSX file? Is that what you sent me?

The polling place for Wards 1-3 is 301 Allen St, Hudson, NY 12534 (St. Mary's Academy).

I sent you a KML (Keyhold Markup Language). Google Earth was originally called Keyhole Earth Viewer, which was developed by Keyhole, Inc., a company that was acquired by Google.

XLSX is an Excel workbook file.

This is the file I created:

Ward      Address   Location
1   301 Allen St, Hudson, NY 12534   St.Mary's Academy
2   41 N 2nd St, Hudson, NY 12534   Hudson Housing Authority
3   520 Warren St, Hudson, NY 12534   Hudson City Hall
4   51 N 5th St, Hudson, NY 12534      Hudson Armory
5   102 Harry Howard Ave, Hudson NY 12534      Montgomery C Smith Intermediate School

It is for illustrative purposes only, so I picked a building in each ward. I don't know that they are suitable for polling locations. Google doesn't always do a super job of locating address, so I had to drag the markers.

What I really need is a nice pretty map, with all the streets and alleys marked where the ward boundaries are, that can be increased in size some, and laminated, to pass out to voters (or at least show them while trolling for petition signatures). How about helping me my friend. Please? Pretty please? I will send you a fruit basket for Xmas or something.

I have the docs all done, so the next step is to get the blessing of the City attorney, particularly about the abstract language that he writes (which includes the ballot language), but which I wrote for him. That way, once we get the signatures, we will know in advance what the abstract language will be, so that there are no surprises, or contretemps. Man, this was complicated! NY law is a total cf - just horrible.

That is why I don't any law has been passed ever, by petition, without the cooperation of the Common Council or County legislative body, in the state of NY. It is all just too daunting. So not only will Hudson have the distinction of being the only city in the nation with weighted voting, but will also be the first to pass a new law by petition in NY, not written by the Common Council or a County body, designed to get rid of that singular distinction.

Just because it has proven too tough for others, doesn't mean that it is too tough for me. I am one determined little prick, when I feel animated by something. I am going to make this happen by sheer force of will.

[jimrtex]

I was thinking about your desire to maintain the status quo. The status quo is that the residents of Westwind vote in Ward 4. So how about this alternative?



Remember that most of the population in that big block between Glenwood and Green is either on Glenwood or on the eastern end, off of Fairview.

This keeps most of the current area east of 5th St within the gridded area in the same ward, and keeps the annexed area on the east edge of the city in the same ward.

By the way, do any of the alleys have sidewalks?

[Torie]

I like that map, particularly from a selfish political standpoint (well other than for me), but again, we are not crossing Warren Street, and I want to minimize population variances.

The alleys don't have sidewalks. In fact, my garage encroaches on the alley by a couple of feet.   Which means that when I rebuild the wreck (it is a ferrel cat haven at the moment), it will need to be moved off the alley. Hopefully I can keep the aspect of the configuration where it runs lot line to lot line, which makes it roomy.

[jimrtex]

I like that map, particularly from a selfish political standpoint (well other than for me), but again, we are not crossing Warren Street, and I want to minimize population variances.

The alleys don't have sidewalks. In fact, my garage encroaches on the alley by a couple of feet.   Which means that when I rebuild the wreck (it is a ferrel cat haven at the moment), it will need to be moved off the alley. Hopefully I can keep the aspect of the configuration where it runs lot line to lot line, which makes it roomy.

What are the street addresses of the two units facing 3rd St, between Rope Alley and Robinson? (west side of the street)?

Did the city clerk take into account the unit size when making her estimate of the division of the Hudson Terrace Apartments. Can you get the number of residents directly?

Why is the number of registered voters per unit south of Warren 33% higher than north of Warren?

[Torie]

I like that map, particularly from a selfish political standpoint (well other than for me), but again, we are not crossing Warren Street, and I want to minimize population variances.

The alleys don't have sidewalks. In fact, my garage encroaches on the alley by a couple of feet.   Which means that when I rebuild the wreck (it is a ferrel cat haven at the moment), it will need to be moved off the alley. Hopefully I can keep the aspect of the configuration where it runs lot line to lot line, which makes it roomy.

What are the street addresses of the two units facing 3rd St, between Rope Alley and Robinson? (west side of the street)?

65 N 3rd, and then there is one building with 3 doors, the middle one has 61 on it, so it may be the three doors are 63, 61, and 59.

Did the city clerk take into account the unit size when making her estimate of the division of the Hudson Terrace Apartments. Can you get the number of residents directly?

No, just number of units. No, you cannot as of 4-1-2010 get the number of residents.

Why is the number of registered voters per unit south of Warren 33% higher than north of Warren?

I have no idea, and was unaware of that.

[jimrtex]

I like that map, particularly from a selfish political standpoint (well other than for me), but again, we are not crossing Warren Street, and I want to minimize population variances.

The alleys don't have sidewalks. In fact, my garage encroaches on the alley by a couple of feet.   Which means that when I rebuild the wreck (it is a ferrel cat haven at the moment), it will need to be moved off the alley. Hopefully I can keep the aspect of the configuration where it runs lot line to lot line, which makes it roomy.

What are the street addresses of the two units facing 3rd St, between Rope Alley and Robinson? (west side of the street)?

65 N 3rd, and then there is one building with 3 doors, the middle one has 61 on it, so it may be the three doors are 63, 61, and 59.

I thought that there were 20 numbers per block, but maybe not. How does the BOE figure out what ward residents live in?

Did the city clerk take into account the unit size when making her estimate of the division of the Hudson Terrace Apartments. Can you get the number of residents directly?

No, just number of units. No, you cannot as of 4-1-2010 get the number of residents.

Since there are 1, 2, and 3 bedroom apartments, that could be a source of error. Why can't you go to the property management people and find out how many people lived in each building? That would not break confidentiality, and would help secure proper representation for the residents.

Why is the number of registered voters per unit south of Warren 33% higher than north of Warren?

I have no idea, and was unaware of that.

70 voters in southern part; 95 northern part. Assuming I have attributed the following ambiguous addresses correctly:

Ward 1:

63 voters with apparently valid correspondence between address and apartment.

4 ambiguous.

15 South Front no apartment given. (south)
15 South Front no apartment given. (south)
15 South Front 11S - there is no apartment S in any of the 12-unit buildings (south)
15 South Front 2A - building 2 is in the north (north)

Ward 2

93 voters with apparently valid correspondence between address and apartment.

15 North Front 10G - building 10 is in the south (south)
15 North Front 13E - building 13 is in the south (south)
15 North Front 8 - no apartment given (north)
15 North Front 9A - building 9 is in the south (south)
15 North Front 9K - building 9 is in the south (south)

Ward 1: 63 consistent + 7 apparent = 70/60 units = 1.17 per unit.
Ward 2: 93 consistent + 2 apparent = 95/108 units = 0.88 per unit.

If residents are proportional to registered voters, then the split is 210 north: 155 south, which would make the ward populations:

Ward 1 1304, Ward 2 1266, and your deviation range 3.0%.